lenin 22 April 1870 – 21 January 1924), [DATE]
Political Ideas of Lenin:
1. The Russian Revolution:
Lenin was an inborn revolutionary and while in exile he continued his
revolutionary activities which resulted in the formation of a revolutionary
party known as Russian Social Democratic Labour party (R.S.D.L.P).
Some revolutionaries advanced the argument that the workers should form
trade unions to press their demands upon the capitalists.
The political objectives of any organization will definitely divide the workers.
But the core group set up by Lenin, when he was in Geneva, strongly
opposed this move. His argument was trade union based on economic
factors would make the workers reform-minded and enslave them to
capitalists. So Lenin advised his followers to discard such trade unionism.
Before 1905 Lenin was convinced that the peasants and workers must
understand the necessity of a revolution and in order to organize and unite
them a party organization is a must.
Lenin once said:
It is not sufficient for revolution that the exploited and oppressed
masses understand the impossibility of living in the old way and
demand changes. For revolution it is essential, first, that a
majority of the workers (or at least a majority of the class-
conscious, thinking, politically active workers) should fully
understand that revolution is necessary and be ready to sacrifice
their lives for it, secondly, that the ruling classes be in a state of
governmental crisis.
Lenin thought that if the government were in crisis that would encourage
the backward and politically conscious people to assemble together and
form a coherent movement against the government which will precipitate
the fall.
This fundamental principle of revolution formulated by Lenin is not
imaginary. The revolution of 1905 and two revolutions of 1917 corroborate
Lenin’s fundamental law. He was of opinion that the mere presence of
objective situation was not enough for any revolution, it must be organized.
lenin 22 April 1870 – 21 January 1924), [DATE]
He also emphasized that the Russian economy was dominated by the
foreign investors and capitalists. Lenin was convinced that for the
emancipation of the working class it is necessary to seize political power
because it is the cause of exploitation.
RUSSIA IN THE MIDST OF IT ALL
The working class was more militant; Strikes, demonstrations and other
tactics were adopted by them. The peasants also joined hands with them
and, ultimately, the countrywide agitation made the Tsar rulers helpless.
The workers, peasants and even the members of the bourgeoisie formed
organizations to give concrete shape to their movements. In such a
situation a revolution took place in Russia in 1905 (22 January). It is also
called “Bloody Sunday”.
Russian people demonstrated before the palace of the Tsar peacefully, but
repressive and ruthless measures were perpetrated by the Tsar police
upon them and this made the people furious. Waves of strikes and
demonstrations flooded the Russian Society.
At the time of 1905 Russian revolution Lenin was in Geneva. So the
revolution was absolutely spontaneous.
3. The Revolution of 1917:
Lenin investigated the causes of the failure of the revolution of 1905 and he
stated his conclusions in Lessons of Revolution published in 1910.
His analysis contains the followings points:
(a) No cooperation with the so-called Russian liberals,
(b) Only a revolutionary struggle of the masses can lead to victory,
(c) Mere underestimation of Tsarism is not enough; all efforts must be
made to destroy it.
lenin 22 April 1870 – 21 January 1924), [DATE]
(d) Only the working class can provide proper leadership because the
peasants are weak and unorganized.
(e) Constitutional tactics adopted by the Tsar government should be
discarded,
(f) Mensheviks were the tools of Russian liberals and democrats and hence
they cannot be relied upon.
Keeping the above lessons in mind Lenin wanted to launch a final strike
against the Tsar authority. From the activities of the Tsar government he
realized that it was gradually becoming weak and reckless and trying to
save itself from complete disaster.
Just watch the Netflix show
Lenin was convinced that it was beyond the capacity of the Tsar
government to provide bread and other necessaries and ensure peace and
allot land to the landless people and under such situation he gave a clarion
call to the masses to rise against all sorts of odds and repressions. He
openly declared that he would not accept parliament.
By October 1917 the weakness and inefficiency of the government reached
their zenith and Lenin thought that the most opportune moment had arrived
to launch a final attack and he did that immediately.(chayein milgaya usko)
In his Civil War in France Marx clearly stated that the chief cause of the
failure of the commune was workers’ inability to form a party. But when
Lenin appeared in the Russian political scene and decided to launch an
uncompromising struggle against Tsardom, he felt the necessity of a party
and this realization came as early as 1901.
he second issue is on the role of the party. Lenin openly challenged the
argument and stand of the economists. “The economists interpreted
historical materialism as a theory of primacy of the proletariat’s
economic struggle as compared with political aims”.
The argument of the economists was that the material interests of the
workers is economic interests and those must be met at first and after that
they will spontaneously fight for political struggle and domination. To unite
the workers, they held, this condition must be fulfilled.
lenin 22 April 1870 – 21 January 1924), [DATE]
In his famous work what is to Be Done, Lenin attacked this economism. He
said that the chief objective of the workers would be to capture political
power and emancipation from economic bondage would follow. He also
refuted the economists’ argument of spontaneity.
A centralized and well-organized party was to him the only way. “As
against the populists, he conceived of this party as proletarian, as
against the legal Marxists, as a party of action as well as of theory,
and as against the economists as a party with a political as well as an
economic programme”
Lenin thought that in order to be the vanguard of the proletariat the party
must be an “iron party”, that is, it must enforce discipline and principles of
revolution and protracted class struggle among the members.
Without an “iron party” it was impossible to carry out the dictatorship of the
proletarian. Party should be the highest form of organisation for carrying
out proletarian struggle against the bourgeoisie.
What Lenin wants to emphasize is that without a nod from the central
committee or organisation regional branches cannot take any decision.
To fulfill the goals of revolution Lenin thought that the party should be small
so that it can function swiftly and quite effectively.
In 1920 Lenin laid down that the basis of the party should be “democratic
centralism” which implies the combination of democratism and centralism
or centralisation. Lenin elaborated the principles of democratic centralism
under the new historical conditions when the age of proletarian revolution
had come. Lenin wanted to apply the principle in the party congress of the
Russian Social Democratic Labour Party.
All organisations of the party, according to Lenin, are subordinated to the
central authority, the decisions of the higher party organisation are
obligatory for lower party organisations.
Criticism:
Lenin’s theory of party has been subject to severe criticisms by both
Marxists and non-Marxists.
lenin 22 April 1870 – 21 January 1924), [DATE]
He and his adherents have always assured us that Lenin is neither
distorting nor amending the central principles of Marxism. But if we look at
his theory of party we will witness a clear negation of this contention. Both
Marx and Engels have all long advocated the establishment of dictatorship
of proletariat after the seizure of power by the proletarians.
Instead of advocating for dictatorship of proletariat, Lenin ultimately
supported the dictatorship of party which Marx and Engels never wanted.
His advocacy for the mastery of party over all the affairs of state clearly
curtails the power and rule of the Soviets. Dictatorship of party undoubtedly
makes Marxism a mockery.
His criticism of his opponents’ view reveals that he was intolerant and very
often used indecent phrases.
Marcel Liebman has said:
“One could go on indefinitely accumulating examples of the invectives
indulged in by Lenin in his pursuit of what he himself called an “implacable
campaign”.
5. Theory of State:
A very important contribution of Lenin lies in his interpretation and
elaboration of the concept of state of which Marx had said very little. The
best treatment is found in Engels’s The Origin of Family, Private Property
and-State.
Lenin, borrowing the central idea from Marx and Engels, has expounded
the Marxian doctrine in his The State and The State and Revolution. The
latter was published in August 1917 and the former in 1919. The State and
Revolution is regarded by many scholars as a very important writing of
Lenin. What Engels did not say but wanted to say, Lenin has explained in
The State and Revolution.
Following Marx and Engels Lenin says that in the primitive society there
was no existence of state because there were no classes. When the
society came to the divided into opposing classes as a result of the
lenin 22 April 1870 – 21 January 1924), [DATE]
emergence of private property the necessities of state became inevitable.
History shows that the state is a special apparatus for coercing people.
One class uses this apparatus to coerce another class. The state is by no
means a power forced on society from without. It is the product of society at
a certain stage of development. This society has become entangled in an
insoluble contradiction with itself.
It is now clear that according to Lenin also Marx and Engels the state is a
human product not bestowed upon man by any invisible power: A product
of irreconcilability of class antagonism.
Marx, Engels and also Lenin have viewed history from the standpoint of
materialist conception. They have said that the study of history reveals that
in different periods of time different classes arose and their interests were
diametrically opposite; and because of this the in interests could not be
reconciled.
In the slave society there were slave-owners and slaves, in the feudal
period there were landlords and serfs. Finally, in industrial society, there
arose capitalists and working class or proletarians.
In all these epochs these classes stood against each other. One class
wanted to dominate another. But ultimately it was found that the
economically dominant class got an upper hand and established its
mastery over the weaker class which was in numerical majority.
The powerful class with the help of police, army, bureaucracy and other
coerce- enforcing machinery succeeded in controlling the weaker class.
These forces are state forces and controlled and maintained by state. It
may also be put in a different way.
The economically stronger class created machinery which could help it in
exploitation. It is now obvious that if the interests of the opposing classes
could be reconciled such an apparatus could not have arisen.
Let us sum up the matter in the words of Lenin:
The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class
antagonisms. The state arises, where when and in so far as class
lenin 22 April 1870 – 21 January 1924), [DATE]
antagonisms objectively cannot be reconciled. The existence of the state
proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable.
The state is an organ for the reconciliation of classes. It has been
maintained by Lenin that although the state represents the powerful class,
it sometimes plays the role of arbitrator in cases of disputes and this state
does to show its neutrality. But ultimately the state fails to settle the
disputes simply because these cannot be reconciled.
When the settlement fails the real character of state is exposed, it takes the
side of the dominant class state. The state is the rule of a definite class.
Immediately after October Revolution (November Revolution, New Style)
Lenin castigated the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries. They
argued that the state could reconcile the classes. Lenin called this petty
bourgeois theory. He also called it petty bourgeois and Philistine
reconciliation theory.
He concluded that the state is an organ of class rule and product of class
antagonisms. This specific role of the state helps its alienation from the rest
of the society. It keeps itself above the society and rule from above. Hence
the emancipation of the working class shall be preceded by destruction of
ruling class and seizure of state power.
An Instrument for Exploitation:
The chief role of state according to Marx, Engels and Lenin is it is an
instrument of exploitation. The dominant class controlling the sources of
production uses the state for its own benefits. So if there were no classes
there could not arise the necessity of state.
In the State Lenin makes the following observation:
The state is a machine for maintaining the rule of one class over another.
How the state plays the role of exploitation? It has a vast army of
bureaucracy which from time to time makes laws fulfilling the interests of
the ruling class and again when these laws prove redundancy they are
abolished or amended and in this way the process continues. In case of
violation of state laws, army or police are pressed into service.
lenin 22 April 1870 – 21 January 1924), [DATE]
The state is a machine for the oppression of one class by another, a
machine for holding the obedience to one class other subordinate classes.
There are various forms of this machine. The slave owning state could be a
monarchy, an aristocratic, republic or even a democratic republic.
In fact, the forms of government varied, but their essence was always the
same. The slaves could not enjoy any rights. The condition of serfs in
feudal state was better in comparison with slaves, but they were oppressed
and exploited. The industrial workers in the same way were also oppressed
and exploited.
In a democratic republic wealth exercises its power indirectly, but all the
more surely, first, by means of the direct corruption of officials as in
America and secondly by means of an alliance with government and Stock
Exchange as in France and other capitalists countries. In all the capitalist
countries, Lenin observes, banks and other financial institutions have
developed exceptionally and these are controlling the financial world.
Moreover, these financial institutions are in the full control of the wealthiest
section of the community. These capitalist countries are called democra-
cies or republics, but these terms are misnomers.
People hardly enjoy any rights or privileges. The interests of Stock
Exchange and financial institutions are fully protected by the various
machinery of state. Political, economic and other interests of the working
class and peasants received no importance at the hand of persons
manning the state machinery.
Some petty-bourgeois democrats, socialist revolutionaries and Mensheviks
liberally eulogies the so-called democratic methods of bourgeois state.
These are universal suffrage and party system.
Lenin is of opinion that these petty-bourgeois democrats have dismally
failed to understand the real character of the exploitative role of the
capitalist state. These are subterfuges employed by the state.
Withering Away of State:
Engels, in his pamphlet Socialism: Utopian and Scientific,
says “interference in social relation becomes, in one domain after
lenin 22 April 1870 – 21 January 1924), [DATE]
another, superfluous and then dies out of itself. The state is not
abolished, it dies out.” This is, in nutshell, the famous doctrine of
withering away of state.
This doctrine has been variously interpreted and the bourgeois
theoreticians and sociologist have distorted the concept to suit their
motives. Lenin in The State and Revolution has offered us a clear
exposition of the theory.
Lenin’s clarification of withering away of state is:
First, Engels said in seizing state power the proletarial thereby abolishes
“The state as state”. This phrase of Engels is the source of a lot of
confusion.
Detractors of Marxism say that Engels advocated for an abolition of state
and in that case he was at par with anarchists, because the anarchists also
wanted to destroy the state.
Lenin’s clarification is that after the proletarian revolution, the bourgeois
state will be abolished. But such a state will not immediately wither away.
Why? When the proletarian seizes state power, for its own convenience
and benefit it will keep certain elements of the bourgeois state.
Only the repressive aspects of bourgeois state will be abolished, not the
whole structure of such a state. After the socialist revolution there will be no
classes. The proletarian state will be a symbol of perfect democracy.
The phrase withering away means the remnants of the proletarian state will
die or wither away. Lenin emphasizes that there is difference between the
abolition of state as state and withering away of state. Bourgeois thinkers,
because of their shallow knowledge, have failed to realize this difference.
Second, about the withering away of state Lenin says that the central idea
of what Engels wanted to say had not been fully understood by the
bourgeois thinkers. In speaking of the state as dying down of itself Engels
refers clearly and definitely to the period after the state has taken
possession of the means of production in the name of the whole society,
that is, after the socialist revolution.
lenin 22 April 1870 – 21 January 1924), [DATE]
A socialist revolution will abolish state as state. But when there will be a
perfect democracy there will be no need of any state apparatus. The
remnants of the bourgeois state will then wither away. In other words, the
withering away of state is in full consonance of perfect democracy.
Third, Lenin says that the proposition the state withers away is mainly
directed against opportunists and anarchists, particularly the latter. This is
due to the feet that the anarchists raised a slogan that state should be
destroyed to ensure maximum freedom of people.
Lenin was also not in very much favour of electoral alliance with the
Constitutional Democrats in all cases. He said that only under exceptional
circumstances such electoral alliance might be forged. On this issue he
differed from Mensheviks. He was of opinion that in order to fight the right
wing and reactionary candidate’s alliance might be made. Lenin thus
adopted a mid and moderate path so far as participation in parliament was
concerned.
